Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

[Dragons87]

Yes, yes. Age-old question. But this question could hold an important clue to refuting evolutionism!

Because the answer is clearly "neither". Without eggs, there won't be any chickens, but with only one chicken, either a hen or a rooster, would not be able to produce offspring. The real answer here is: it takes a pair of chickens, one male and female, to produce hatchable eggs.

One thing about evolution strikes me strongly confusing is how the different species were supposed to evolve through breeding, but at the same time the reproduction patterns for all species is essential the same, either by binary fission or by sexual contact. So how did two sexes evolve out aesex? Why didn't the two sexes evolve separately?

 

[random_guy]

Yes, yes. Age-old question. But this question could hold an important clue to refuting evolutionism!

Because the answer is clearly "neither". Without eggs, there won't be any chickens, but with only one chicken, either a hen or a rooster, would not be able to produce offspring. The real answer here is: it takes a pair of chickens, one male and female, to produce hatchable eggs.

One thing about evolution strikes me strongly confusing is how the different species were supposed to evolve through breeding, but at the same time the reproduction patterns for all species is essential the same, either by binary fission or by sexual contact. So how did two sexes evolve out aesex? Why didn't the two sexes evolve separately?

There are many different types of reproduction patterens and ways to exchange genetic material.

Have you heard of bacteria DNA uptake? Some bacteria can incorporate foreign genetic material into their DNA. Next, have you heard of plasmid transfer? It's somewhat similar to sex, as in two bacteria can exchange genetic material. However, it doesn't matter what sex a bacteria is. They can still exchange material.

Next up, have you heard of hermaphordite animals, animals that contain both sex organs? A lot of very simple multicelluar life is hermaphorditic, such as sponges. This is consistant with the a view of the evolution of sex. Only in the more recent animals does sexual differentiation show up.

Don't you think that scientists have given a little thought to this problem?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, yes. Age-old question. But this question could hold an important clue to refuting evolutionism!

Because the answer is clearly "neither". Without eggs, there won't be any chickens, but with only one chicken, either a hen or a rooster, would not be able to produce offspring. The real answer here is: it takes a pair of chickens, one male and female, to produce hatchable eggs.

One thing about evolution strikes me strongly confusing is how the different species were supposed to evolve through breeding, but at the same time the reproduction patterns for all species is essential the same, either by binary fission or by sexual contact. So how did two sexes evolve out aesex? Why didn't the two sexes evolve separately?

We take the separation of the sexes for granted. One is either male or female. But sex precedes the separation of the sexes. In many unicellular forms, there can be sexual reproduction even though there is no sexual difference between them. Any cell can mate with any other cell.

Then there are the hermaphroditic species already mentioned. Flatworms for example, produce both eggs and sperm, so any worm can mate with any other. The PBS show Evolution has a clip of two flatworms engaged in 'penis fencing'. Whoever wins the match gets to be the daddy, while the other must take on the much more energy-consuming task of maternity.

Some animals and many plants even fertilize themselves, though others have built in mechanisms to avoid that. And some species continue to reproduce asexually even though they also reproduce sexually.

So there are lots of ways you can get from asexual reproduction to species in which each individual specializes in one sexual role.

 

[dallaskeen]

But what about the more recent species? Might they go back to asexual reproduction? How do you guys think differentiated reproductive organisms came about?

 

[shernren]

Aw man, this is easy! Of course the chicken came first!

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i4/chicken_egg.html

 

[Jig]

You guys are missing the point. Of course there is some asexual living systems in the world. This in no way explains how something asexual could evolve/split into two destinct sexes that are independent of each other.

 

[random_guy]

You guys are missing the point. Of course there is some asexual living systems in the world. This in no way explains how something asexual could evolve/split into two destinct sexes that are independent of each other.

Oh really? We have examples of asexual species, hermaphodites, single celled organisms that live in colonies who's role in the colony is for reproduction, and parthogenic species. All of these creatures are possible pathways of the evolution of sex and all are different stages of sexual reproduction.

Remember, sex is not independently evolved. Many creatures are both sexes, and many creatures have no sex.

 

[artybloke]

but with only one chicken,

All together now:

EVOLUTION HAPPENS TO POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS

 

[Jig]

All together now:

EVOLUTION HAPPENS TO POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS

Changes within the same kind (species) is not evolution, it is adaptation and also helps with proving the literal account of Noah and the Flood. (What you like to call mirco-evolution that is.) This follows the bible, each kind to it's own. But macro-evolution says kinds evolve out of their original species and makes a new kind. This has not been observed or can be proven. It is a speculation and a theory. And if it was true, then nature has not followed God's rules for kinds.

 

[artybloke]

This has not been observed or can be proven

Someone's been lying to you. It has been observed. And proof is for alcohol and maths; but there is an enormous amount of evidence in its favour.

 

[gluadys]

Changes within the same kind (species) is not evolution, it is adaptation and also helps with proving the literal account of Noah and the Flood. (What you like to call mirco-evolution that is.) This follows the bible, each kind to it's own.

Yes it is evolution, as scientifically defined. Such adaptation requires mutation and natural selection to change the distribution of alleles in a population---and that is evolution.

But macro-evolution says kinds evolve out of their original species and makes a new kind.

No, it says that species become new species. It says nothing about these new species not being of the same "kind" (however defined) as their ancestral species. In fact, it is predicted by evolution that new species will be of the same genus, family, order, class, etc. as their ancestral species. A scenario in which a new species of fruit fly was not a fruit fly or a new species of ape was not an ape would falsify the basic model of evolution.

This has not been observed or can be proven.

Correctly defined (as above) macro-evolution (aka speciation) has been observed. It is not speculation.

It is a speculation and a theory. And if it was true, then nature has not followed God's rules for kinds.

Correctly defined, macro-evolution requires that all new species be of the same "kind" as their ancestors. i.e. all new species of insects will be insects. All new species of ferns will be ferns. All new species of vertebrates will be vertebrates, etc. This is essential to the generation of a nested hierarchy of life forms such as we find in nature. And the nested hierarchy is predicted and explained by evolution.